In my graduate class on Arab politics, we would often puzzle over decisions autocratic leaders have made that did not seem to make sense, either in moral or strategic terms. It was often tempting to take the intellectually lazy route and think they were simply crazy or stupid. In order to make the discussion more productive, the professor would suggest that we assume the leaders are at least as smart as ourselves.
In recent weeks, the only person convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was released to Libyan soil, where he received a jubilant welcome organized by Libyan leader Col. Muammar el Kadafi. Unfortunately, many observers have dismissed Mr. Kadafi's behavior as his "usual mischief-making," as if the capricious and enigmatic behavior were just an inexplicable character flaw.
The truth is that Mr. Kadafi, who celebrates 40 years in power today, may be better understood as the careful orchestrator of confusion. Indeed, his attempt to sow chaos and discontent on the world stage may be a key to understanding how he has managed to outlast nearly every other head of state in the world.
Mr. Kadafi's maneuvering is best understood in the context of the dangerous, often fatal stakes of political leadership in Libya (and, it should be said, in many other parts of the developing world). Civil society institutions are weak, and the state has not divorced itself from intruding into almost every area of civic life. Mr. Kadafi, for his part, has crushed at least two dozen coup attempts against his regime.
If this world sounds a little like anarchy, it may be for good reason. In his analysis of Mr. Kadafi's Libya, historian Henry Christman, who wrote the introduction to the English translation of Mr. Kadafi's infamous "Green Book," draws a philosophical connection between the "people's committees" found throughout modern Libya and the "associations" talked about by pro-anarchists in previous centuries.
The gains to be made in a state of anarchy may not be readily apparent, especially since anarchy as a political theory is more often the subject of ridicule than serious study. But a growing number of political scientists have taken another look and sought to explain why anarchism would still appeal to leaders like Mr. Kadafi.
